Anyone watch the TL test and see what happened? The wheel was ripped off which then ripped off the door sending the car the other direction. A safer situation in this instance, but how often is that going to happen in a real world crash?

edit: Same thing on the Volvo. Basically what needs to happen is for the wheel to come off instead of getting shoved into the firewall.

It's really strange that bmw, benz or lexus stopped right "in the wall", while for example volvo somehow flew it by with the front wheel gone aside. And that's cuz of their super safety design or that yellow peace of metal which was strengthened? emm bullshit. concurrence of circumstances, nothing more

That yellow piece of metal is designed to deflect in a way that the car can slide around the object it is impacting. Crash survival is all about the speed at which you decelerate. Deflecting away from the barrier is a great option, even if it means you'll hit something else. By deflecting, your some of your inertial energy is transferred in to the first object. When you hit the second object, you're already slowed down significantly, and have a higher rate of survival.

There's no way to spin this. Volvo has the right idea.

It's not the end of the world though. As noted in the video, this type of crash isn't the one that kills you, it's the one that breaks your legs. Fun times!

People don't just barrel into something at 40mph. They hit the brake. That totally changes the forces, angles and dynamics of how the occupants are positioned and moving.

If they want to hit the barrier at 40mph that's fine, but start at 60 and hit the brakes so that it's going 40 when it hits the barrier, then you can see that the occupant may already be leaning slightly forward and see if the dip in the front end plays a significant role in the forces on the vehicle.

Who drives 60 in their BMW or European cars. In reality most BMW drivers around my area do 80 and the fast drivers are doing 90-100. It's perfectly realistic to say they are able to shave off 60mph from 100 to hit the center divider or a pole at 40. This is a slap across the face on most German cars.

Agree. This is a poor showing on an important test. It's a terrible day for BMW right now; this isn't good at all.

People on BMW internet forums can rationalize the test result all day long, but it's still a crash test result where BMW performed poorly. Nothing positive about it, unless you count Audi and Mercedes coming in even worse.

Nothing positive about it, unless you count Audi and Mercedes coming in even worse.

What's with all the doom and gloom? Do you know the odds on hitting an object at the exact point on the car, heading in the exact direction, going the exact speed, with no breaking, with one person in the car weighing the exact weight as the dummy with no luggage in the trunk with the exact tires? Astronomical. Yes, that angle crash happens in 25% of all accidents. But those accidents include every car maker known to man. BMW is but one manufacturer. The question of whether it is a bad day for BMW should be, how many f30 BMWs have had the exact accident where the person sustained sever injuries because of the "mediocre" protection? If the answer is 100%, THEN that's a bad day. If 75% walk away, then that's not so bad. You have to look through the general numbers.

Who drives 60 in their BMW or European cars. In reality most BMW drivers around my area do 80 and the fast drivers are doing 90-100. It's perfectly realistic to say they are able to shave off 60mph from 100 to hit the center divider or a pole at 40. This is a slap across the face on most German cars.

If the person had enough control to point the car at the object head on, wouldn't it be possible that the person could point the car AWAY from the object if they had the time and the control?

If the person had enough control to point the car at the object head on, wouldn't it be possible that the person could point the car AWAY from the object if they had the time and the control?

Accidents are accidents, most of the time we don't get to choose whether to have a collision or not otherwise it won't be called an accident. One of the key deciding factors in my family when we cross shop European and Asian cars are safety. Europeans have a long history of building fun and safe cars. They still do, but Asians have caught up and this particular test exposes a flaw in current design, no need to get defensive about it.

Yup for the purposes of this test the Volvo beat the F30 fair and square, and yes any amount of excuses can be made, but they all apply to the Volvo too. It would be interesting to see the test repeated a few times, and see how consistent the results are.

I would say the only issue of deflection or breakaway wheels being the increased chance of secondary collisions, whether it be you bouncing in to a car doing 60mph head on, or your wheel coming off and paralysing passing school children.

__________________

3/15 to i8, and everything in between (yep, even including the F26 and F45)

I think it is more fair to say that it is a bad day for consumer safety; if you check the IIHS website, you will see that this is a new test, does not affect their 2012 Top Safety Award to BMW 3 series, and has not been performed for most new cars. My guess is that many other models will test poorly in this specific and newly designed test as well. Not that "everyone else sucks" is a good defense, but I don't see this as an indictment of BMW but the car industry in general.

The 3 series still gets top ratings for moderate overlap front, side impact, roof safety and rear crash tests, and is still a top safety pick according to IIHS. "It's a terrible day for BMW" is hyperbole.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WJGreer

Agree. This is a poor showing on an important test. It's a terrible day for BMW right now; this isn't good at all.

People on BMW internet forums can rationalize the test result all day long, but it's still a crash test result where BMW performed poorly. Nothing positive about it, unless you count Audi and Mercedes coming in even worse.

Acrura and Honda have historically produced some of the worst crash test of any car ever manufactured so I don't really place a great deal of merit on a single test like this.
The F30 is stiffer and stronger than the E90, and passes other tests with flying colours. Maybe there will be adjustments if 'consistent' results show there is a weakness for this type of impact, but until we see more evidence I would take this result with a huge pinch of salt. After all, where were these guys when American cars could not even be fitted with decent headlamps - wasn't that long ago that European cars had to have their halogen headlamps ripped out and replaced with tungsten rubbish just to comply to lighting regulations. Not criticising really - but a sense of perspective is necessary I feel.

In the years I have been a fireman I have yet to see this type of accident. If a person hit a tree, pole or other object, it almost always included some part of the front crash points. In the case of a tree, pole or other object coming in from the side, they usually crush some part of the A,B,or C pillar, hopefully providing some sort of protection. More importantly, in any crash be it a MINI , BMW, MB, or Dodge ram, against a tree, the tree almost always wins. To me this is a meaningless test and would not stop me from buying a F30 or even other cars on the list.

No. They used to focus on those things. But, then they found that a nice even collision is not anywhere near as catastrophic as one that is offset.

This is a huge blow to BMW. BMW focused on finding a way to give nearly all of the electronic gizmos available on the 7 and the 5 to the
3. Worse, BMW shaved away structural weight in the name of Eco pro and other nonsense.

Now, while it is true your little 4 banger beats the old model's 6, and it's true that the new model goes from 0 to 60 a tad faster, it is equally true that there was a hidden compromise and that was the safety of the BMW occupants.

All you 3 series owners that bought this car before the offset tests were actually performed have been duped! You probably never even asked about safety because BMW goes to great lengths to tout the 3 series as one of the safest cars on earth. But it is not and objective tests prove it is not even close to the safest car in its class.

Look at the intrusion in these tests. It is horrible!!! If I were owner of a 3 series I would be pissed! The fact that this is a new test does not impress me. It only goes to show that BMW makes cars to pass particular set of tests. BMW should worry about the real world.

Driving while texting just got a lot more lethal thanks to BMW.

Your post sounds like someone who just waits to hear something negative about the new 3 so you can attack and criticize the car, and insult the owners.

Duped? Hardly. All car manufacturers build cars to pass crash tests.
Crash tests also give manufacturers data that they can use to make their cars safer. By taking the tests the car shows how well or not it performs in certain types of accidents.

How many people actually make their car purchase decision based on crash testing results?
I guess those who bought an Audi and MB were duped even more?

Plus, this is a new test being implemented, along with the previous tests.
How did the new 3 do on the current test methods?
Also, how long have car companies had to design cars to perform better with this new test?
Those factors are very important to know if one is comparing crash worthiness.

I can easily tell you that I don't look at crash testing results as a factor to which car I buy. I buy based on performance and what I like.
Even though we now know the results of this test, how many are going to sell their 3's because of it?

You: Driving while texting just got a lot more lethal thanks to BMW.

BMW has nothing to do with idiots who text and drive.
Texting while driving is not legal in most states. If an idiot does text and drive, that is in now way BMW's fault.
You're trying to make it sound as if BMW's lackluster performance in this new test is somehow at fault for not properly protecting an idiot who's own actions will cause an accident.
If you apply that kind of logic, then all car makers are at fault for not making 100% crash proof cars for any type of idiotic driving that might cause an accident.

Kudos to IIHS for making this test that represents a closer reality of crash test.
Also kudos to a to Acura, Volvo and Infiniti.
It appears other carmakers including BMW are caught by surprise on this and how even Mercedes dares to complain of this new test not being fair, is it because they are hurt by this truth.
Should we be happy that BMW came slightly better than Mercedes and Audi, NO.
BMW disappointed because dud not score high where we all expected.
To all their engineers who contributed to this failure the message is: back to the drawing board.
Or perhaps it is not the engineers fault but of those modern smart executives who bring fresh cost cutting ideas that result to inferior cars we get now.
This -MAKE IT CHEAPER- is not just in automotive industry, it is happening in all other fields.

To all their engineers who contributed to this failure the message is: back to the drawing board.
Or perhaps it is not the engineers fault but of those modern smart executives who bring fresh cost cutting ideas that result to inferior cars we get now.
This -MAKE IT CHEAPER- is not just in automotive industry, it is happening in all other fields.

Making it cheaper doesn't necessarily means it's worse in terms of safety.
It depends on where the cuts are.

I would say the only issue of deflection or breakaway wheels being the increased chance of secondary collisions, whether it be you bouncing in to a car doing 60mph head on, or your wheel coming off and paralysing passing school children.

That is a variable this is not considered in this test. That is also the reason why no test can replicate 100% real world situations.
U can have an accident in a top scoring car & get killed, yet it's also perfectly possible that u survive without a scratch crashing in a deathtrap.
As for the Volvo, an explanation as to why they have this feature is cos there are lots of accidents involving hitting wild animals in Sweden. The way a UK member here hit a deer in his brand new F30 reminded me of this.

Stop talking shit. If BMW is doing such a horrible job, what about Lexus, Audi or MB?

I think you are not comparing apples to oranges. The A4 and C are both older cars. When they were being developed, I doubt this test was a huge factor in their design.

It is a blow to BMW that the new F30 cannot pass the test with a "Good" rating with a new chassis.

You can be sure that the new A4 and C, when they are released, will earn a "Good" rating. Hopefully the test does its job..encourage BMW to look at the results and see what they can do to improve safety with the existing F30 chassis.